Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
---- In-universe categories Brain A subcat to Category:Anatomy with all the anatomical parts of the brain as well as things like neurotransmitters etc. There is a list on the brain page to start this category. :I like the idea, but is that the best name for it? How about "Nervous system"? --LauraCC (talk) 15:56, December 16, 2016 (UTC) ::"Brain anatomy" seems like the obvious term for what you seem to want to be doing. I too think that "brain" is a bit too vague: it seems like the proposed category would be intended for brain components, but if it's just called "brain" people might not get that and put things like "lobotomy", "cranial implant" or "aneurysm" in it. Otherwise, Support. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:17, December 18, 2016 (UTC) :I suppose if there are enough that fall into such a category, we could add "neurological conditions" as well. --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, December 22, 2016 (UTC) Bajoran religious leaders For all the kais, prylars, ranjens, bajoran monks, and vedeks. --LauraCC (talk) 18:19, December 23, 2016 (UTC) :You're talking about all the titles or the specific individuals? Tom (talk) 18:46, December 23, 2016 (UTC) Individuals with those titles. Sorry I wasn't more clear. :) We could have a Bajoran religion category too, I suppose. --LauraCC (talk) 18:50, December 23, 2016 (UTC) :I am not sure if I like thte suggested title. Most of them are no "leaders". Tom (talk) 21:23, December 23, 2016 (UTC) What then? Religious practitioners is too vague, anyone who subscribes to a religion is a practitioner. :) --LauraCC (talk) 21:25, December 23, 2016 (UTC) ::What about "Bajoran clergy"? 31dot (talk) 21:34, December 23, 2016 (UTC) "Clergy" is never used in dialogue. But yeah, that could work. --LauraCC (talk) 21:36, December 23, 2016 (UTC) ::Or "Bajoran religious officials". 31dot (talk) 21:38, December 23, 2016 (UTC) Sure. --LauraCC (talk) 21:39, December 23, 2016 (UTC) :If you're looking for leaders you'll have to check the Category:Bajoran government officials as the official leaders are listed there. You'll have to be precise what your intention is when suggesting a category. Right now you don't want to add every Bajoran who has a religious occupation and I missed the point of this category suggestion. Tom (talk) 21:40, December 23, 2016 (UTC) Their names are all scattered on the respective title pages. There's not enough for any one title to have a category. --LauraCC (talk) 21:42, December 23, 2016 (UTC) ::Kais (?) are not government officials(with the exception of Winn). 31dot (talk) 21:47, December 23, 2016 (UTC) :And Ranjens and Prylars are no religious leaders. Back to my initial question, what will you list in this category which right now has no name? All Bajorans who have anything to do with religion? All religious leaders? Or every Bajoran who has a religious title? And 31dot, the Kai is a religious leader, so a government official and also has influence in the government per the article here on Memory Alpha. Tom (talk) 21:56, December 23, 2016 (UTC) Individual people who have a religious occupation in the Bajoran religion. Prylars and ranjens are monks, so maybe Category:Bajoran monks? --LauraCC (talk) 21:58, December 23, 2016 (UTC) ::The Bajoran religion isn't part of the government; having influence in the government isn't the same as being in the government. The Bajoran government is not like that of Vatican City(where The Pope is head of state). 31dot (talk) 22:01, December 23, 2016 (UTC) :::How many pages, not including unnamed pages, are we talking about? - 23:54, December 23, 2016 (UTC) Thirty one. Kais *Meressa *Taluno *Opaka *Winn Adami Prylars *Bek *Quen *Rhit * An unnamed prylar Ranjens * * Solbor * Telna Vedeks *Bareil Antos * Fala *Imutta *Latha Mabrin *Mera *Nane *Oram *Ossan *Porta *Redab *Solis *Sorad *Teero Anaydis *Tolena *Tonsa *Ungtae *Winn Adami *Yarka (defrocked in 2371) *Yassim Monks * Unnamed monk We probably have enough for a subcat of Vedeks as well (nineteen). How about "Bajoran religious personnel"? --LauraCC (talk) 14:39, December 24, 2016 (UTC) :::Oppose. Category:Religious leaders is the category for these, as they are leaders in the way that the average follower of the religion isn't. This category would only pointlessly subdivide that category, since it won't combine any categories on these pages. - 05:12, December 29, 2016 (UTC) Just to clarify, "religious figures" and "religious leaders" are not the same thing for the purposes of MA? One is a historical personage, not necessarily a leader, while the other is always someone in a position of authority? It seems there might be some overlap between those, and this category might bridge it for all Bajoran religion entities among both. Alternately, Category:Bajoran religion might suffice for all Bajoran things said to be religious (Pah-wraiths, pagh) and not secular (Bajoran Central Archives, etc). --LauraCC (talk) 17:50, December 29, 2016 (UTC) :::A religious figure is a god/prophet/messenger/angel/etc. while a religious leader is a person in the "church" for said figure(s), as opposed to a person who follows the teachings of, or simply goes to, said "church." The only overlap is Dukat and Sisko, but don't need to be in leaders because figures already implies that. I also oppose any further religious subdivisions as unnecessary at this time. Categories don't replace articles. - 07:42, December 30, 2016 (UTC) Not even for "Vedeks"? It might look nicer to link to Category:Vedeks at the bottom of the vedek article, than having a long list there. A list is only helpful in that instance if it organizes the individuals into several smaller groups. --LauraCC (talk) 15:46, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :::You and I clearly have different opinions on what a "long list" is. There are things to say about that list, and ways to format it that aren't as long. - 17:14, December 30, 2016 (UTC) I'm open to that. --LauraCC (talk) 17:15, December 30, 2016 (UTC) Holoprograms :This seems like diminishing returns from the 233 page Dixon Hill category. Are these pages too much for their articles? Are any of them they really in danger of being lost in the shuffle? - 17:04, December 30, 2016 (UTC) It's not that they wouldn't retain their other categorizations, just gain a new one. --LauraCC (talk) 17:06, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :I'm asking why, other than the fact that we have some for much larger and more inclusive programs, do we need these? The articles on the programs seem like they would be enough. - 17:40, December 30, 2016 (UTC) Consistency, chiefly. I wonder if you think Category:The Adventures of Flotter would have worked better as a template then. Separated by "stories", "characters", and "locations"? --LauraCC (talk) 17:42, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :Yeah, I don't think we "needed" that one either. We don't "need" templates to list links on pages where all the relevant subjects are already linked, and we don't "need" categories to group them together if the main article already does that. - 18:12, December 30, 2016 (UTC) It looks nicer, perhaps. And aids those who wish to find all related topics at a glance or who see the world differently (more visual learners than readers). To allow people of different learning styles/intelligence types to understand their way. I don't know. It doesn't have to be that way. It's just that there have been new templates created and old ones deleted, categories made into templates and vice versa...it's hard sometimes to know which more people will support or like. --LauraCC (talk) 18:15, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :Start with what problem you want to solve, and then ask yourself what the most natural solution is. Refine from there, making sure you have an actual problem and your solutions don't create more problems than they solve. That said, templates and categories go after subsections and lists on the hierarchy of solutions in a wiki. - 18:23, December 30, 2016 (UTC) My intention was to list things which are mentioned/seen in these programs. Maybe Dixon Hill should be weeded, or split into two: a) things seen/said when Picard plays the program and b)stuff from that lit Data was reading, like Silent Forrester. --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, December 30, 2016 (UTC) Production POV categories Nominee subcats Subcats for actors, production staff, writers, and productions related to Trek that were nominated for/won Emmys. Right now, everyone's in one big "nominee" or "winner" category. --LauraCC (talk) 16:21, December 31, 2016 (UTC) :Oppose. This is going far into a wrong direction. Tom (talk) 16:25, December 31, 2016 (UTC) ::Oppose. As above. These are collections of people. This isn't the appropriate place to break them down. -- sulfur (talk) 16:26, December 31, 2016 (UTC) It's just that currently, the category page's wordings calls it a "list of individuals who have...". A book/film isn't a who, it's a what...Maybe I'm just splitting hairs...--LauraCC (talk) 16:41, December 31, 2016 (UTC) E3 award winners and nominees Apparently Star Trek (video game) won some E3 awards (aka "Game Critics Awards") http://www.digitalextremes.com/news/2011/08/star-trek-wins-big-e3-2011, and Star Trek: Bridge Crew was nominated recently for best vr game. http://uploadvr.com/best-vr-games-awards-e3-2016/ --LauraCC (talk) 17:23, December 31, 2016 (UTC) Maintenance categories